EEG vs. Hybrid EEG–fNIRS BCI for FES Control in Healthy Subjects: A Blind Randomized Study and an Open Dataset

Among the various brain–computer interface (BCI) modifications used in post-stroke rehabilitation, BCI systems combined with functional electrical stimulation (FES) are considered the most effective. As a preliminary step toward optimizing such systems for clinical application, it remains unclear whether using electroencephalography (EEG) alone versus a hybrid EEG and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) approach affects real-time three-class BCI–FES control performance in healthy individuals. In a blind randomized study, 16 healthy volunteers completed five BCI–FES training sessions across three days. In one group, FES of wrist extensor muscles was driven by a hybrid EEG–fNIRS classifier; in the other, by EEG only. Classification accuracy, sense of agency, attention, and physical comfort were assessed. No statistically significant between-group differences were found in any outcome measure (p > 0.05). Median real-time three-class classification recall was 53.5% in the hybrid group and 57.3% in the EEG-only group. The median agency score reached approximately 75% of the maximum possible value in both groups. Simulation analysis showed comparable accuracy for unimodal fNIRS-only and EEG-only classifiers. Genetic algorithm-based channel selection identified C3 and C4 as the most informative EEG channels, while optimal fNIRS placement required individual optimization. Within the constraints of the classification and fusion pipeline used here, these findings suggest that signal acquisition modality does not significantly influence BCI–FES performance or sense of agency in healthy subjects. The complete EEG–fNIRS dataset is publicly available through NITRC.